If you ignore RADIATION it will go away.

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
I am not worried about an Extinction event. That was Doer not me.

I also know that the particles are not water soluble.

How much radiation can fish and water mammals take before it is a lethal dose?
Click to expand...
lethal as in radiation sickness or long term cancer risks?

i dont know exactly.

im unaware of reports of fish kills presently happening in the harbour area at fukishima (i wouldnt bet on long term cancer risks tho) the storage pools on the otherhand would be on the lethal side

as with all life on earth anything in the sea has to cope with natural radiation level. outside of the immediate area of fukishima its pretty much buisness as usual


NuclideActivity used
in calculation		Ocean
PacificAtlanticAll Oceans
Uranium0.9 pCi/L
(33 mBq/L)		6 x 10[SUP]8[/SUP] Ci
(22 EBq)		3 x 10[SUP]8[/SUP] Ci
(11 EBq)		1.1 x 10[SUP]9[/SUP] Ci
(41 EBq)
Potassium 40300 pCi/L
(11 Bq/L)		2 x 10[SUP]11[/SUP] Ci
(7400 EBq)		9 x 10[SUP]10[/SUP] Ci
(3300 EBq)		3.8 x 10[SUP]11[/SUP] Ci
(14000 EBq)
Tritium0.016 pCi/L
(0.6 mBq/L)		1 x 10[SUP]7[/SUP] Ci
(370 PBq)		5 x 10[SUP]6[/SUP] Ci
(190 PBq)		2 x 10[SUP]7[/SUP] Ci
(740 PBq)
Carbon 140.135 pCi/L
(5 mBq/L)		8 x 10[SUP]7[/SUP] Ci
(3 EBq)		4 x 10[SUP]7[/SUP] Ci
(1.5 EBq)		1.8 x 10[SUP]8[/SUP] Ci
(6.7 EBq)
Rubidium 8728 pCi/L
(1.1 Bq/L)		1.9 x 10[SUP]10[/SUP] Ci
(700 EBq)		9 x 10[SUP]9[/SUP] Ci
(330 EBq)		3.6 x 10[SUP]10[/SUP] Ci
(1300 EBq)
Natural Radioactivity by the Ocean


http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/natural.htm

[h=3][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Human body[/FONT][/h]You are made up of chemicals, and it should be of no surprise that some of them are radionuclides, many of which you ingest daily in your water and food. Here are the estimated concentrations of radionuclides calculated for a 70,000 gram adult based ICRP 30 data:

NuclideTotal Mass of Nuclide
Found in the Body		Total Activity of Nuclide
Found in the Body		Daily Intake of Nuclides
Uranium90 �g30 pCi (1.1 Bq)1.9 �g
Thorium30 �g3 pCi (0.11 Bq)3 �g
Potassium 4017 mg120 nCi (4.4 kBq)0.39 mg
Radium31 pg30 pCi (1.1 Bq)2.3 pg
Carbon 1495 �g0.4 �Ci (15 kBq)1.8 �g
Tritium0.06 pg0.6 nCi (23 Bq)0.003 pg
Polonium0.2 pg1 nCi (37 Bq)~0.6 �g
Natural Radioactivity in your body
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
The money I was saying to be used as a "donation" would not be a blank check. It would be used to research the best method of containment and disposal of nuclear waste.

A situation like this gives us real world data to use in developing methods of cleaning up nuclear byproducts.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
I am not worried about an Extinction event. That was Doer not me.

I also know that the particles are not water soluble.

How much radiation can fish and water mammals take before it is a lethal dose?
Click to expand...
I never said I was worried. The sophie rabbit said that. I said, considering the amount of material involved and lack of ideas to fix this and the general head in the sand against Big Oil, some authors I have quoted, say that is possible.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I never said I was worried. The sophie rabbit said that. I said, considering the amount of material involved and lack of ideas to fix this and the general head in the sand against Big Oil, some authors I have quoted, say that is possible.
Click to expand...
of course your not worried

all this talk of "crust busting" "there actually may be only one outcome. Extinction Event."

is just you being optimistic and cheerfull

Doer said:
I am beginning to think there is. And it is such a simple calculation, there actually may be only one outcome.

Extinction Event.

There I said it.

There are already, on the site, 1000+ water storage tanks of the highest radioactive level, that it is almost un-imaginable.

If you leaned on this tank for a few minutes it will kill you.

If you stood at the 2 feet line, for one hour, you are exposed at, LD 50. That will kill 1/2 of humans exposed this way. Lethal dose for 50%. That horror calculation I remember from the Cold War.

Now, why is all that water like that? Cooling the mass of exposed fuel rods.

What about the containment? Loop is broken. Spray cooling only.

But, all that water??? Right.

How much is contaminated? An Olympic sized swimming pool per week. 660,000 US gals. 2640 Tons per week.

But, But, but...???? Right.

When can they stop? They cannot stop the cooling.

Why not? Well, the fuel piles will melt together and form critical mass and explode.

Ugduimdk a=./' !!! yes

So, not a big bomb right? Wrong. Fukushima fuel density is hundreds of times the yield of a Chernobyl event and tens of thousands of times stronger than Hiroshima. Crust buster. And a Winter Maker.

OR, if no critical mass is achieved, then the Syndrome. Melt into the Crust and expose high pressure mantle material. A super volcano.

AND, the corker, is what they are already doing, accidentally and, on purpose. They have to dump it in the ocean. They can't store it and the entire ocean cannot cool it, IAC.

Checkmate?
Click to expand...

does it take practice to so fluently talk out both sides your mouth?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I never said I was worried. The sophie rabbit said that. I said, considering the amount of material involved and lack of ideas to fix this and the general head in the sand against Big Oil, some authors I have quoted, say that is possible.
Click to expand...
Oh, and don't listen to this chump. Have some Woods Hole input.

http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=160264&pt=2&p=167269

Almost all substances dissolves in sea water, even glass.

Caesium metal is highly reactive and very pyrophoric. In addition to igniting spontaneously in air, it reacts explosively with water even at low temperatures, more so than other members of the first group of the periodic table.[SUP][8][/SUP] The reaction with solid water occurs at temperatures as low as −116 °C (−177 °F).[SUP][12][/SUP] Because of its high reactivity, the metal is classified as a hazardous material.

When it does that it forms Caesium137 Chloride, the salt.

So, the stupid stain, knows no math or chemsitry, and provides no sources. Where as you, Pie, seem to be a real person.

Don't fall for this AGW agenda hound. It can't be cleaned up or altered.

Because of its beta decay (to [SUP]137m[/SUP]Ba), [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs is a strong emitter of gamma radiation.[SUP][46][/SUP] Its half-life makes it the principal medium-lived fission product along with [SUP]90[/SUP]Sr—both are responsible for radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel after several years of cooling up to several hundred years after use.[SUP][47][/SUP] For example [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs together with [SUP]90[/SUP]Sr currently generate the largest source of radioactivity generated in the area around the Chernobyl disaster.[SUP][48][/SUP] It is not feasible to dispose of [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs through neutron capture (due to the low capture rate) and as a result it must be allowed to decay.[SUP][49]


So, what lump shit did you just bite? Spit! Spit! :) He slips off into lies for evil agenda.

[/SUP]Strontium is a grey, silvery metal that is softer than calcium and even more reactive toward water, with which it reacts on contact to produce strontium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. It burns in air to produce both strontium oxide and strontium nitride, but since it does not react with nitrogen below 380 °C, at room temperature it will only form the oxide spontaneously.[SUP][2][/SUP] Three allotropes of metallic strontium exist, with transition points at 235 and 540 °C.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Because of its extreme reactivity with oxygen and water, this element occurs naturally only in compounds with other elements, such as in the minerals strontianite and celestite. It is kept under a liquid hydrocarbon such as mineral oil or kerosene to prevent oxidation; freshly exposed strontium metal rapidly turns a yellowish color with the formation of the oxide. Finely powdered strontium metal is pyrophoric meaning it will ignite spontaneously in air at room temperature. Volatile strontium salts impart a bright red color to flames, and these salts are used in pyrotechnics and in the production of flares. Natural strontium is a mixture of four stable isotopes.[SUP][2][/SUP]

[SUP]




[/SUP]
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Oh, and don't listen to this chump. Have some Woods Hole input.

http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=160264&pt=2&p=167269

Almost all substances dissolves in sea water, even glass.

Caesium metal is highly reactive and very pyrophoric. In addition to igniting spontaneously in air, it reacts explosively with water even at low temperatures, more so than other members of the first group of the periodic table.[SUP][8][/SUP] The reaction with solid water occurs at temperatures as low as −116 °C (−177 °F).[SUP][12][/SUP] Because of its high reactivity, the metal is classified as a hazardous material.

When it does that it forms Caesium137 Chloride, the salt.

So, the stupid stain, knows no math or chemsitry, and provides no sources. Where as you, Pie, seem to be a real person.

Don't fall for this AGW agenda hound. It can't be cleaned up or altered.

Because of its beta decay (to [SUP]137m[/SUP]Ba), [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs is a strong emitter of gamma radiation.[SUP][46][/SUP] Its half-life makes it the principal medium-lived fission product along with [SUP]90[/SUP]Sr—both are responsible for radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel after several years of cooling up to several hundred years after use.[SUP][47][/SUP] For example [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs together with [SUP]90[/SUP]Sr currently generate the largest source of radioactivity generated in the area around the Chernobyl disaster.[SUP][48][/SUP] It is not feasible to dispose of [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs through neutron capture (due to the low capture rate) and as a result it must be allowed to decay.[SUP][49]


So, what lump shit did you just bite? Spit! Spit! :) He slips off into lies for evil agenda.

[/SUP]Strontium is a grey, silvery metal that is softer than calcium and even more reactive toward water, with which it reacts on contact to produce strontium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. It burns in air to produce both strontium oxide and strontium nitride, but since it does not react with nitrogen below 380 °C, at room temperature it will only form the oxide spontaneously.[SUP][2][/SUP] Three allotropes of metallic strontium exist, with transition points at 235 and 540 °C.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Because of its extreme reactivity with oxygen and water, this element occurs naturally only in compounds with other elements, such as in the minerals strontianite and celestite. It is kept under a liquid hydrocarbon such as mineral oil or kerosene to prevent oxidation; freshly exposed strontium metal rapidly turns a yellowish color with the formation of the oxide. Finely powdered strontium metal is pyrophoric meaning it will ignite spontaneously in air at room temperature. Volatile strontium salts impart a bright red color to flames, and these salts are used in pyrotechnics and in the production of flares. Natural strontium is a mixture of four stable isotopes.[SUP][2][/SUP]

[SUP]




[/SUP]
Click to expand...
you posting that because your not worried?

here's something a bit more soothing


  • Originally Posted by Doer
    The first is that the Pacific Ocean is big enough for this level of release not to represent the global catastrophe that some are predicting. Let’s get some scoping perspective on this. The volume of the North Pacific is 300 million cubic kilometers. The total inventory of the four Fukushima Daiichi reactors, including their spent fuel pools, is 732 tons of Uranium and Plutonium fuel which is largely insoluble in sea water. The inventory in terms of the medium half-life nuclides of radiological significance Cs-137, Cs-134 and Strontium-90, is 3 x 10[SUP]18[/SUP] becquerels (Bq) each. Adding these up gives about 10[SUP]19[/SUP] Bq. If we dissolve that entire amount into the Pacific, we get a mean concentration of 33 Bq per cubic meter - not great, but not lethal. Of course this is ridiculous since the catastrophe released less than 10[SUP]17[/SUP] Bq of these combined nuclides and even if all of this ends up in the sea (which it may do), the overall dilution will result in a concentration of 1 Bq per cubic meter. So the people in California can relax. In fact, the contamination of California and indeed the rest of the planet from the global weapons test fallout of 1959-1962 was far worse, and resulted in the cancer epidemic which began in 1980. The atmospheric megaton explosions drove the radioactivity into the stratosphere and the rain brought it back to earth to get into the milk, the food, the air, and our children’s bones. Kennedy and Kruschev called a halt in 1963, saving millions.



    ​




 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Oh, and don't listen to this chump. Have some Woods Hole input.

http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=160264&pt=2&p=167269

Almost all substances dissolves in sea water, even glass.

Caesium metal is highly reactive and very pyrophoric. In addition to igniting spontaneously in air, it reacts explosively with water even at low temperatures, more so than other members of the first group of the periodic table.[SUP][8][/SUP] The reaction with solid water occurs at temperatures as low as −116 °C (−177 °F).[SUP][12][/SUP] Because of its high reactivity, the metal is classified as a hazardous material.

When it does that it forms Caesium137 Chloride, the salt.

So, the stupid stain, knows no math or chemsitry, and provides no sources. Where as you, Pie, seem to be a real person.

Don't fall for this AGW agenda hound. It can't be cleaned up or altered.

Because of its beta decay (to [SUP]137m[/SUP]Ba), [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs is a strong emitter of gamma radiation.[SUP][46][/SUP] Its half-life makes it the principal medium-lived fission product along with [SUP]90[/SUP]Sr—both are responsible for radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel after several years of cooling up to several hundred years after use.[SUP][47][/SUP] For example [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs together with [SUP]90[/SUP]Sr currently generate the largest source of radioactivity generated in the area around the Chernobyl disaster.[SUP][48][/SUP] It is not feasible to dispose of [SUP]137[/SUP]Cs through neutron capture (due to the low capture rate) and as a result it must be allowed to decay.[SUP][49]


So, what lump shit did you just bite? Spit! Spit! :) He slips off into lies for evil agenda.

[/SUP]Strontium is a grey, silvery metal that is softer than calcium and even more reactive toward water, with which it reacts on contact to produce strontium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. It burns in air to produce both strontium oxide and strontium nitride, but since it does not react with nitrogen below 380 °C, at room temperature it will only form the oxide spontaneously.[SUP][2][/SUP] Three allotropes of metallic strontium exist, with transition points at 235 and 540 °C.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Because of its extreme reactivity with oxygen and water, this element occurs naturally only in compounds with other elements, such as in the minerals strontianite and celestite. It is kept under a liquid hydrocarbon such as mineral oil or kerosene to prevent oxidation; freshly exposed strontium metal rapidly turns a yellowish color with the formation of the oxide. Finely powdered strontium metal is pyrophoric meaning it will ignite spontaneously in air at room temperature. Volatile strontium salts impart a bright red color to flames, and these salts are used in pyrotechnics and in the production of flares. Natural strontium is a mixture of four stable isotopes.[SUP][2][/SUP]

[SUP]




[/SUP]
Click to expand...
you posting that because your not worried?

here's something a bit more soothing


  • Originally Posted by Doer
    The first is that the Pacific Ocean is big enough for this level of release not to represent the global catastrophe that some are predicting. Let’s get some scoping perspective on this. The volume of the North Pacific is 300 million cubic kilometers. The total inventory of the four Fukushima Daiichi reactors, including their spent fuel pools, is 732 tons of Uranium and Plutonium fuel which is largely insoluble in sea water. The inventory in terms of the medium half-life nuclides of radiological significance Cs-137, Cs-134 and Strontium-90, is 3 x 10[SUP]18[/SUP] becquerels (Bq) each. Adding these up gives about 10[SUP]19[/SUP] Bq. If we dissolve that entire amount into the Pacific, we get a mean concentration of 33 Bq per cubic meter - not great, but not lethal. Of course this is ridiculous since the catastrophe released less than 10[SUP]17[/SUP] Bq of these combined nuclides and even if all of this ends up in the sea (which it may do), the overall dilution will result in a concentration of 1 Bq per cubic meter. So the people in California can relax. In fact, the contamination of California and indeed the rest of the planet from the global weapons test fallout of 1959-1962 was far worse, and resulted in the cancer epidemic which began in 1980. The atmospheric megaton explosions drove the radioactivity into the stratosphere and the rain brought it back to earth to get into the milk, the food, the air, and our children’s bones. Kennedy and Kruschev called a halt in 1963, saving millions.



    ​




 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
I am not worried about an Extinction event. That was Doer not me.

I also know that the particles are not water soluble.

How much radiation can fish and water mammals take before it is a lethal dose?
Click to expand...
Well, again this is not the point. Poisoning the ocean means making the ocean poisonous for us, not the sea life.

There is a fine ecosystem at Chernobyl. It is just that the top of the food chain, is Cannid. 15 year lifespan. Foxes and dogs.

The oceans will be fine. But, the long lived top, meat eaters will develop the higher rates of cancers as we, the land animals, that are longer lived. And that may make extinct the Humans and the whales.

But, by all means, let's risk that, to stop "made up AGW for profit" and to take a piss on Big Oil.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
[h=4]How do people come in contact with strontium-90?[/h]Everyone is exposed to small amounts of strontium-90, since it is widely dispersed in the environment and the food chain. Dietary intake of Sr-90, however, has steadily fallen over the last 30 years with the suspension of nuclear weapons testing. People who live near or work in nuclear facilities may have increased exposure to Sr-90. The greatest concern would be the exposures from an accident at a nuclear reactor, or an accident involving high-level wastes.
Top of page
[HR][/HR][h=4]How does strontium-90 get into the body?[/h]People may inhale trace amounts of strontium-90 as a contaminant in dust. But, swallowing Sr-90 with food or water is the primary pathway of intake.
Top of page
[HR][/HR][h=4]What does strontium-90 do once it gets into the body?[/h]When people ingest Sr-90, about 70-80% of it passes through the body. Virtually all of the remaining 20-30% that is absorbed is deposited in the bone. About 1% is distributed among the blood volume, extracellular fluid, soft tissue, and surface of the bone, where it may stay and decay or be excreted.
Top of page
[HR][/HR][h=3]Health Effects of Strontium-90[/h][h=4]
How can strontium-90 affect people's health?[/h]Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, and tends to deposit in bone and blood-forming tissue (bone marrow). Thus, strontium-90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to Sr-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia.
Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90. The risk depends on the concentration of Sr-90 in the environment, and on the exposure conditions.
Click to expand...


http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.html
[h=4]How do people come in contact with cesium-137?[/h]Everyone is exposed to very small amounts of cesium-137 in soil and water as a result of atmospheric fallout. In the Northern Hemisphere, the average annual dose from exposure to cesium-137 associated with atmospheric fallout is less than 1 mrem; this dose continues to diminish every year as cesium-137 decays.
People may also be exposed from contaminated sites:

  • Walking on cesium-137 contaminated soil could result in external exposure to gamma radiation. Leaving the contaminated area would prevent additional exposure.
  • Coming in contact with waste materials at contaminated sites could also result in external exposure to gamma radiation. Leaving the area would also end the exposure.
  • If cesium-137 contaminated soil becomes air-borne as dust, breathing the dust would result in internal exposure. Because the radiation emitting material is then in the body, leaving the site would not end the exposure.
  • Drinking cesium-137 contaminated water, would also place the cesium-137 inside the body, where it would expose living tissue to gamma and beta radiation.
People may also unknowingly handle a strong industrial source of cesium-137. For example, certain moisture gauges contain cesium-137 sources.
Click to expand...


http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/cesium.html#contact
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
So how big is this chernobyl hot zone?

50-100 years is a long ass time. If that radiation is seeping directly into the ocean, wouldn't that have a poisoning effect on the coastal waters of japan and eastern asia?
Click to expand...
Oh, you can go in there. There is actually some tourism. Moonsuit gawking.

It is the spread of fallout from the fire, minus the stuff that made it to Sweden on the wind. It is mostly C137 and it has a 1/2 life of about 30 years. But, the Stron90 will be around a lot longer.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Not used for....the way the arguments go here. Just pick a word, change it, as you see fit, and disregard the rest.

Used IN area denial.

And you don't think wide spary of fine particle lead is a problem, then of course, you don't see salting with DU as a problem.

Same scale. It has nothing to do with the radio-aspect it is a heavy metal poison, sprayed willi-nilly.

And you queer the discussion. It is not about Sophie the Sophist's Genocide.

It is about the use a poison, DU, just to be able to get the resin to set in a polymer (they say) Said poison to be sprayed willi-nilly after 48 hrs. A long term pollution that is not bound in devices. It is meant to spray.

You can take a shit on your idea opponents the same way they learned to shit on you. Good Job.
Click to expand...
DU is not a primary source of heavy metal poisoning, it is not arsenic or cyanide, or even mercury.

just plain Lead can cause heavy metal toxicity, but ww2's spent bullets are not "Area Denial" weapons either.

DU's toxicity is slightly higher than lead but it is no bar to anyone passing through an area "contaminated" by it, since they wont even know it's there.

"Area Denial Weapons" seek to discourage the enemy from moving through an area RIGHT NOW, not to "punish them" with a (hypothetical) slightly elevated cancer risk 20 years down the road.

DU munitions use DU as a part of a penetrator, and that is all, claiming there is some nefarious scheme to poison 2 Trillion Iraqi babies and toxify their baby Milk is just too ridiculous.

getting butthurt and squawking like an angry parakeet doesnt make your case. evidence has been cited on both sides, YOUR citation contained deliberately misleading language despite being technically accurate, and the result is a Truth, wrapped in a Lie's ceremonial robes.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
And no one will live there for quite awhile.

The remains of reactor unit 4 will remain radioactive for some time. The isotope responsible for the majority of the external gamma radiation dose at the site is Caesium-137, which has a half-life of about 30 years. It is likely that with no further decontamination work the gamma ray dosage at the site will return to background levels in about 300 years. However, most of the alpha emitters are longer lived, and the soil and many surfaces in and around the plant are likely to be contaminated with transuranic metals such as plutonium and americium, which have much longer half-lives. It is planned that the reactor buildings will be disassembled as soon as it is radiologically safe to do so.
[h=3]Sarcophagus replacement[/h] Main article: New Safe Confinement

New Safe Confinement construction


Originally announced in June 2003, a new steel containment structure named the New Safe Confinement (NSC) would be built to replace the aging and hastily-built sarcophagus that currently protects reactor unit 4. Though the project's development has been delayed several times, construction officially began in September 2010. The New Safe Confinement is financed by an international fund managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), is being designed and built by the French-led consortium Novarka, which includes the companies Bouygues and Vinci. Novarka is building a giant arch-shaped structure out of steel, 190 m (623 ft) wide and 200 m (656 ft) long to cover the old crumbling concrete dome that is currently in use.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Well, again this is not the point. Poisoning the ocean means making the ocean poisonous for us, not the sea life.

There is a fine ecosystem at Chernobyl. It is just that the top of the food chain, is Cannid. 15 year lifespan. Foxes and dogs.

The oceans will be fine. But, the long lived top, meat eaters will develop the higher rates of cancers as we, the land animals, that are longer lived. And that may make extinct the Humans and the whales.

But, by all means, let's risk that, to stop "made up AGW for profit" and to take a piss on Big Oil.
Click to expand...
Woah that is a big statement. I don't think a nuclear melt down, even if it were to expel plumes of radiation into the wind currents, will cause human extinction.

It would be bad for sure but there would be large groups of people that don't die and continue to reproduce.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
its alright hes not worried about it.....
Click to expand...
I'm personally more worried about the potentially vast environmental consequences.

No meltdown would directly end human civilisation, but the food supply, etc could be forever altered.

Im not an Eco-fag by any stretch of the imagination, but the potential wholesale destruction of our ecosystem does scare me a little.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I'm personally more worried about the potentially vast environmental consequences.

No meltdown would directly end human civilisation, but the food supply, etc could be forever altered.

Im not an Eco-fag by any stretch of the imagination, but the potential wholesale destruction of our ecosystem does scare me a little.
Click to expand...
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I'm personally more worried about the potentially vast environmental consequences.

No meltdown would directly end human civilisation, but the food supply, etc could be forever altered.

Im not an Eco-fag by any stretch of the imagination, but the potential wholesale destruction of our ecosystem does scare me a little.
Click to expand...
only the area local to fukishima has the environmental damage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top